Waymarks
Contender No. 69
Let us walk by the same
rule. Autumn 2012
Report of Open Air preaching
24th
May LUTON
Town Centre. Last week it was too cold for me to go out. Today it is too hot! I
asked the Lord for one dispensation, that I might keep my hat on while I
preached. I have never before done this. My PPS leaves me susceptible to
extremes of temperature.
The
council have rearranged the street furniture again and now there is no traffic
noise at all.
A
lady arrived to make a street collection. Her baggage was labelled, “Helping
disabled people”. I suspected that passers-by might think she was collecting
for me. She wasn’t making much impression on the local populace, and eventually
moved away. I don’t suppose much help would come my way anyway. I get no
financial help from any source, and all my disability equipment I have bought
myself.
Several
people seemed to be listening intently so I preached on for longer than usual.
5th
August KENT.
I was invited to preach the gospel while here on holiday. At the end an elderly
lady commented how great to hear the gospel preached again. What goes on at
these places? Very strangely I am black-listed at most Gospel Halls. Perhaps it
is because we warn souls to flee the wrath to come.
*****
AV Verses Vindicated
Genesis 6: 2
That the sons (ben) of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
“The
divine beings saw how beautiful these human women were….” CEB
“the
sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful and they married
any of them.” NIV
The
CEB rendering of this verse is NOT a translation. It is an interpretation.
The
NIV implies that the sons of God were not human but this also is an
interpretation.
Ben is found 4925 times in
the Old Testament and is used in relation to angels only at Job 1: 6,2: 1, and
38: 7. There is no reference there to angels marrying and the Lord assures us
in Mark 12: 25 that angels do not marry.
Being sexless, if they could marry perhaps some of them might have chosen men!
If it is assumed that because these are angels mentioned in Job, therefore
angels are referred to in all other references, then the final reference would also
have to be concerning angels. Plainly it is not:
Yet the number of the
children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea…..and it shall come to pass,
in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall
be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Hosea 1: 10. Think
about the law of first and last reference.
The
AV presents elohim in Genesis 6: 2 as God and not gods, therefore these
are not rebellious nobles as some interpret. We must accept the obvious interpretation
that they were those who being sons, were in God’s family as opposed to Satan’s
family. These took wives from amongst the ungodly. Taking wives suggests a
continuing state. If they were angels, they presumably surrendered their
angelic status. Their offspring too would have been hybrid; .half angel and
half human. This is a weird view altogether.
We
note in verse four, the giants were already in the land, and after that..
Angels
did sometimes appear as men. They did not have human flesh. The men of Sodom in
the blindness of their lust were not aware that the two heavenly messengers
were not human beings. The view that some angels could possess human flesh
mocks the unique incarnation of Christ. He need not have been made of a woman.
An incarnate angel could have stepped in!! Angels in flesh is being taught in
the Believer’s Magazine, Question
Box, June 2012. The strange flesh referred to in BM is flesh “of another kind”.
i.e. human or animal.
Genesis 6: 4
There were giants (nephilim) in the earth in
those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the
daughters of men….
Nephilim are mentioned in
this verse and twice in Numbers 13: 33. This is a social comment on the
conditions of the day. When the sons of God came in there were giants in the
land, and after that.
They
were not fallen angels. No Scripture even hints that they may have been.
The
JBF commentary informs us;
The term in Hebrew implies not so much the
idea of great stature, as of reckless ferocity, impious and daring characters,
who spread devastation and carnage far and wide.
The
English meaning also includes persons of great importance or power. “He was an
intellectual giant.”
The
other giants mentioned in the Old Testament were called raw-faw, men of large stature.
1 Timothy 3: 3
….not greedy of
filthy lucre
These
words are missing from the critical text and therefore from subsequent
translations. Modern versions of Scripture are big money.
*****
By the Way….,,
A
FTW wrote recently, “when I go on a school visit, I don’t go in both guns
blazing”.
Paul
wrote,
For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God, Acts
20: 27
Our
FTW implies that he is holding back somewhat, One cannot tell an audience of
mixed religions, We preach Christ
crucified, and, neither is there
salvation in any other. (The very
heart of the gospel!)
Our
school visitors are required to preach another gospel, for which says the
apostle, let him be accursed, Gal.
1: 8
The
evidence of a false gospel preached is when the praise of ungodly men is given.
Our FTW boasts how much he is appreciated by head teachers and staff.
Woe unto you, when
all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false
prophets. Luke
6: 26
Our
FTW cares not that his “message” does not differ from that of the R.C.,
Methodist, Anglican, visitors.
A
little bible story with a hint of a moral application does not keep a soul out
of hell.
I
also note that this FTW has a bible which does not agree with mine.
□In the year 1945 certain liberal minded brethren seized the title that pertains solely to the Word of God and gave the name to their magazine. It would be better called “Specious Weed”.
This magazine, through a
current editor, John Bennett, denies separation and promotes
Neo-Evangelicalism.
Mr Bennett begins his editorial
in the Vol. 67 No.2, 2012 issue by bemoaning the lack of love demonstrated by
those who disagree with him. He part-quotes Gal.5: 22, ‘The fruit of the Spirit
is love’, and ignores the other eight ingredients of this ONE fruit. He claims
that “picking out just a few of the fruits of the Spirit we can see how
practical it is” He also rejects the Authorized Version of 1 Cor. 13: 4, in
favour of the NKJV because of its weak translation of agape.
An unwillingness to contend for
the faith shows no love to Christ. Those who do contend are described as making
a “so-called ‘stand for the truth’”. So he mocks those who oppose error. He
describes them as those who “bite and devour one another.”
If one must ‘stand for the
truth’ we are informed, it must be done according to the dictates of those
being corrected. A person who refuses to heed admonition unless it is done with
an inane grin (proving love?), we
say, is apostate. For that matter a person who rejects the AV Bible
is also apostate.
Mr Bennett claims that those
who do promote error, Paul describes as “my beloved brethren”. 1 Cor
15: 58. This requires a further abuse of Scripture on the part of Mr Bennett,
when he writes that some in Corinth were denying the truth of the resurrection.
This is a double falsehood.
Paul did not refer to “some of you”. He asked “How say some among
you?”
J B will not accept that “some
have crept in unawares”. He will not accept that Paul elsewhere spoke of “false
brethren”. 2 Cor. 11: 26, Gal. 2: 4. Rather, he will hold that any person
holding Brethren Assembly membership is one of his beloved brethren. What a
delusion! My brethren,
and all of them beloved, and faithful brethren. Our fellowship is based on
light (which means I love some brethren who are not in fellowship with
us!)
J B‘s second false
representation is this. These false teachers in fellowship at Corinth were not
denying the truth of resurrection. Mr Bennett might have avoided this error had
he read the passage carefully. They were denying an aspect of it.
Paul wrote, “How say some AMONG
you that there is no resurrection of the dead?: 1 Cor. 15: 12. They were
denying an aspect of resurrection. Personally I expect to attain to the
resurrection without passing through the article of death. I am looking for the
Rapture, which may be today. We have to ask at this point, is Mr Bennett an
A-millennialist?
Tares AMONG the wheat doesn’t
make them wheat.
An example of correcting
in love.
Scene: High Street.
Mr B is about to step off the
pavement into the path of an oncoming bus.
Awkward Bro: Er-hum,
excuse me Mr B,sorry to intrude on you while you are busy. I’d like to draw
your attention to the fact that if you continue along your present course of
locomotion, you are likely, yes indeed I would say positively, you may, or
certainly, ……. oh dear, poor Mr Ben. He’s been flattened. Maybe
I should just have shouted at
him.
*****
The Voice
The Voice, published by Nelson,
is the work of emergent church leaders such as Brian McLaren and Chris Seay, in
conjunction with 120 scholars, authors, and artists. It claims to be a
translation based on dynamic equivalence but it is not even a paraphrase. It is
their own distortion of the Scriptures which place it on a level with the
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New world Translation.
“The Voice” smuggles false doctrine and teaching into the
Biblical Text” —extremetheology.com.
An
example of this is found in John 1: 14,
“The Voice that had been an enigma in the heavens chose to become human and
live surrounded by His creations.
N.B.
I did not find the word “enigma” in my copy of The Voice! So are our “extreme theologians” lying to
justify their cause? Or have the Nelson’s already modified their text?
“Jesus Christ”, “Angel” “Apostles” are not
mentioned at all. The emergent crowd is proud of its post-modernism, but this
book is for the post-rapture era. It is a book for an apostate church after the
true church has been caught away.
*****
Great Truths Abused (first published in Waymarks No. 26, May 2006)
We find a further mutilation of
Scripture occurring in the magazine mentioned above. Under the heading, Great Truths of the Bible (7), Propitiation,
Scripture is twisted in order to give a warped and Calvinistic view of
propitiation. The verse so maligned is 1 John 2:2. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but
also for the sins of the whole world.
Concerning this verse, P Coulson
writes,
-does that
mean a universal propitiation? A fair question indeed, and one which is raised
because of a rare but singularly inappropriate inclusion by the respected
translators of the AV.
The correct
reading of this verse, based on the recognised original texts is: “And he is
the propitiation for our sins; but not for ours alone, but also for the whole
world”. It is important to understand the difference in these two renderings.
For the believer, the Lord Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, personally
and eternally, and He has satisfied the claims of God in relation to our
personal guilt with the outcome that we are forever delivered from divine
judgment. But that cannot be said of all men irrespective of their attitude to
divine things. John does say that Christ is also the propitiation for the whole
world, but he does not say for the
sins of the whole world. If the AV rendering were correct, then the whole
world would be saved, and we know that is not the case. The helpful comment in
Vine’s Expository Dictionary is, “The italicised addition in the AV. “the sins of” gives a wrong
interpretation. What is indicated is that provision is made for the whole
world, so that no one is, by Divine pre-determination, excluded from the scope
of God’s mercy; the efficacy of the propitiation, however, is made actual for
those who believe”...The Lord is the propitiation for the sins only of those
who believe.
P Coulson’s last sentence
contradicts his quote from Vine. Vine says the efficacy is made actual for
those who believe. Coulson suggests this means the propitiation is only for those who believe.
The inference we draw from Mr Coulson is
that while on the cross, Christ was the propitiation for NOBODY. At that moment
nobody believed.(apart from the womenfolk and John at the foot of the cross,
maybe).
When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the
ungodly. Romans 5:5
While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent
his Son to be the propitiation for
our sins. 1 John 4:10.
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath
he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, Col.1:21,22
The four verses above are enough
to show that Christ became our propitiation on the cross. If not then we assume
that Christ in heaven must become a propitiation each time a person believes.
The thought is quite preposterous. Christ on the cross was the propitiation for
the sinner, and for every ungodly, God-hating, alienated and wicked sinner, and
still is. John didn’t say He was our propitiation, or that He will be,
the moment we believe; but that He is the
propitiation. I came into the good of that propitiation the moment I believed.
He is the propitiation for OUR
sins. John defines who is meant by “our” in 5:13 of this epistle; These
things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God. They
are those who believed in John’s day, and every believer since. The “whole
world” is everyone else.
The AV does not teach anywhere
that the whole world will be saved. It is not implied in 1 John 2:2. Because of
the once and for all atoning work of Christ upon the cross, all who repent and
believe the gospel can now receive forgiveness.
P Coulson refers to the
“recognised original texts”. He is very clever. No one else has recognized them
for they disappeared well nigh 2000 years ago. However, some of us know what is
the true text, because God has preserved it for us.
There is in fact no debate over
the Greek text here, and there is no debate over the English translation
either. Dean Alford, who was no lover of the AV Bible, wrote more than 140
years ago,
In the latter
clause [of 1 John 2:2] there is an ellipsis very common in ordinary speech in
every language: “for the whole world” = “for
the sins of the whole world.” —The Greek
Testament; Vol.4.
We note that even the NIV has
“for the sins of” and it is not in italics either. The words are in most other
modern versions, including NEB
and NRSV. The “Reformist” NKJV omits them, showing once again that is not
merely “the AV in modern English.”
Wycliffe in 1380 had “he is the
for3yuenes for oure synnes; and not oneli for oure synnes, but also for the synnes of al the world.”
We see that the reason for
omitting “for the sins of” has nothing to do with textual criticism or
translation but has a lot to do with the promotion of Calvinism. It is a
dishonest omission, a willful corrupting of the word of God (2 Cor.2:17).
Attacks on the AV are seen to be malicious because they are attacks on the
Bible. We would not waste our time debating with men who suggest that the AV is
not the Bible, the word of God.
Alford’s comments on this verse
are worth reading and confirm the above point.
The reason of
the insertion of the particular here [he has already shown that insertion or
omission makes utterly no difference to the meaning], is well given by Luther:
“It is a patent fact that thou too art a part of the whole world: so that thine heart cannot
deceive itself and think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me”.
*****
An Answer to an Article on Election (Believers Magazine, Sept.2001)
The article begins with this sub-heading:
“Election unto salvation may offend human reasoning...”. We say election unto
salvation offends God’s reasoning also. We find no verse of Scripture quoted in
this article that justifies the view presented. Reference is made to Israel and to
certain individuals such as Esau, and attempts are made to draw conclusions
from these. Mr Jack Hunter is quoted as teaching “individual election” but
no source reference is given that this
might be verified. I will quote one who
opposed this teaching in Assembly
Testimony, No.236, Nov/Dec 1991—H T Kimber. There are many more of course,
notable brethren, who reject the notion of “election to salvation” (read the
booklet, Election by W N Benson,
published by Gospel Tract Publications, June 1998)
H T Kimber wrote to correct an
erroneous article on Election published in Assembly Testimony, No.227.
If anyone cannot agree with this
view of election to salvation, we are told it will be because of “severely limited capacity to understand the
mind and ways of God.... our minds are too small...we find it impossible to
reconcile the idea of sovereign choice with the equally scriptural doctrine of
man’s individual responsibility to obey the gospel. To human thinking these two
principles are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable.”
But if the article speaks of “sovereign
choice” then there must be deliberate rejection as well as deliberate
acceptance, or choice does not exist. These contradictions “sit in perfect
accord in the mind of God”. That is, while the “natural mind” calls black black
and white white, and straight cannot be bent, it is different with our God. To
Him straight can be bent and black can be white.
It is assumed only Calvinists
(i.e. those who hold to any part of
TULIP theology) have the mind of God (note, mind
of God is not a Scriptural term).
But the believer is not governed by a natural mind. The believer is renewed in
the mind (Eph.4:22). Paul says, let this
mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus (Phil.2:5), with the mind I myself serve the law of God
(Rom.7:25), and We have the mind of
Christ (1 Cor.2:16). God does not
expect His children to go on in a state of confusion. Our God is not guilty of
double-talk, as the B M article will have us to believe.
Another amazing statement is
brought before the reader: “If it were possible in any way for the harmony of
these two principles to be expressed in words, then surely the Holy Spirit
would have done so in the Scriptures.” This
is an admission that not even the Holy Spirit can reconcile these two views.
The next sub-heading is “...but
it is in total harmony with human responsibility.” Mtt.11.27 is then quoted,
“All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but
the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal him”.
Despite there being no mention,
nor even an allusion, to election in this verse, we are informed, “Such a verse
makes a clear statement (my italics)
concerning the sovereign, elective will of God in relation to individuals from
among the race of men...to the unbiased mind this is a crystal–clear
declaration of individual election”.
The Lord also said Thou
hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto
babes. Mtt.11:7. The verses tell us that the child of God is brought into
divine knowledge, and this can in no way imply therefore that such was
sovereignly elected to salvation.
We ask what kind of human
responsibility is this that cannot respond to the gospel of Christ, because of
not being among the elect? The god of Calvinism commands the repentance of all,
but prevents the ability to perform it.
Another verse quoted, and popular
among Calvinists, is John 6:37. The writer quotes this, “All that the Father
giveth me shall come to me: (divine
election) and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out (human responsibility).”
The Father gives to the Son all
those who freely repent of their sins and trust in Christ. They shall come to
Him for no power in heaven or earth or below can prevent them coming to Him.
There is no election in that. What of those who will not come? That is their
responsibility, we are told. But we are not told that because they are therefore not elect they cannot come. The writer doesn’t
tell us that according to his doctrine God’s choice is to damn them without
opportunity to repent.
The third sub-heading is “In
relation to the salvation of the soul, election is always individual...” We are next told “The Scriptures teach, unequivocally (my italics), that God has
chosen certain individuals to be saved....
We can boldly assert this truth as both scriptural and unassailable.”
The example is then given of Jacob and Esau, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have
I hated.” But this has nothing to do with salvation or election of course. The
writer tells us these are “the inspired words of Paul to the Romans...based
upon God’s sovereign dealings recorded in Genesis 25.23 and Exodus 33.19.” He
does NOT tell his readers that Paul was quoting Malachi 1:2,3 which was written
centuries after both Jacob and Esau had died. That is, God did not make that
statement during their lifetime. In any case, while it is true that God may
deal with individuals as He pleases there is no example in Scripture where an
individual is elected, foreordained, or predestined to do evil against his own
will. It is convoluted thinking that concludes because God deals with certain
individuals according to His own will, therefore God has elected from eternity
other individuals to salvation.
It is boldly asserted that, “The
truth of individual election is emphatically taught in the parenthetic section
of the Roman epistle, chs. 9-11. Indeed, if we fail to see that, we miss the
whole point of that part of the doctrine of the gospel.” No such thing is taught of course, and the
writer doesn’t refer to any particular words to justify his statement. Maybe he
it is who doesn’t understand the gospel.
Romans 9-11, shows us that God
will have mercy on whom He will, and therefore the gospel must go out to the
Gentiles, so that whosoever among these may believe the gospel and be saved.
This is seen in practice in Acts
13:46-48 (quoted in the article but not commented upon). And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. These were
Gentiles who had gladly received the word and had glorified it). They were not foreordained to eternal life. They were
not elected to eternal life. They
were not predestined to eternal life.
God has ordained (purposed,
appointed) eternal life to be the blessing for as many as rightly respond to
the gospel of Christ. It was not to remain the prerogative of the Jew. These
Gentiles accordingly believed.
The fourth sub-heading is,
“....but there is a corporate aspect in relation to Israel’s blessing as a nation.”
“God’s statement, ‘Israel is my
son’ (Ex.422), shows that their election and sonship were collective....”
But we can find no reference to
this corporate, collective election of Israel mentioned in Scripture.
Rather the opposite is stated by Paul in Rom.9;6, They are not all Israel,
which are of Israel. Inclusion in the blessing of the nation
will be on the grounds of personal and individual faith on the part of the Jew.
The term corporate election is one invented by certain men to bring into
derision those holding to the Scriptural doctrine of election. Election is not
to salvation, but those trusting in Christ are chosen before the foundation
of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. (Eph.1:4).
God has chosen those who get saved to be holy and without blame.
The closing words are, “You and I
are not elect because we are in the Church, we are in the Church because we are
the elect of God, sovereignly, gloriously, wonderfully chosen by God to be
saved by His grace! Should we not humbly and thankfully adopt the attitude of
Abraham’s servant? ‘and the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the Lord’
(Gen 24.6)”
This is not how Paul prayed. He
wrote, I have great heaviness and
continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from
Christ for my brethren, my kinsman according to the flesh. Rom.9:2,3. Moses
also prayed, yet now if thou wilt
forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which
thou hast written. Ex.32:32.
It is with great dismay that we
find the Believers Magazine given
over to the promotion of Calvinism.
For those not aware what
five-point (TULIP) Calvinism is, I give a summary below.
TOTAL DEPRAVITY— Man is totally dead to God and cannot of his own
will respond to the gospel.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION—God from eternity unconditionally chose a
certain few out of the human race to be saved.
LIMITED ATONEMENT—Christ died only for those previously elected.
His propitionary sacrifice does not reach to all men.
IRRESISTABLE GRACE—God overpowers the will of the elect sinner,
granting him faith and then repentance to believe on Jesus Christ.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS—All the elect will persevere in the
faith and ultimately die in a state of grace. (None can be sure they are elect
until they die).
L M Vance shows in his book The Other Side of Calvinism, that these
five points are intimately related, so it is inconsistent to reject any one
point and hold to others. But we reject them all as being contrary to the
teaching of Scripture.
I gave Mr Coulson the opportunity to
answer the objections raised by me against “Election to Salvation” before
publication. His reply is in the letters section
Dear brother Ron,
Your self-styled ‘response’ to my
article on Election in the Believers Magazine is as misrepresentative and
malign as your 'response’ to an earlier contribution on the subject of
Propitiation. I would be grateful if you would append to your forthcoming
‘response’ a note from myself stating that I utterly refute your uncharitable
and untrue accusation that I am a ‘Calvinist’ or that I support or teach the
false ‘TULIP’ doctrine.
With
thanks,
Phil
Coulson
I am puzzled by the words “self-styled”.
My answer is Bible-styled. Col.4:6, 2 Tim.4:2. Jude 3. I do only that which is
incumbent upon all believers. Whether my answer is misrepresentative, readers
can judge for themselves. As to being malign, I seek only to establish the
truth. The tenets of Calvinism are NOT commonly held among us and must be
strongly resisted. There was no malignity intended on my part and I certainly
do not feel it. I love my brother in the Lord, and believe that he was sincere
in his articles, and sought to set forth the things that he firmly believes.
I
haven’t at any time accused Mr Coulson of being a “Calvinist” so the charges of
being uncharitable and untrue are invalid. However, readers of Believers Magazine will largely be aware
that the statements in the quoted B M articles do represent the doctrines of Calvinism.
And it would be a matter of spiritual
arrogance for me to thank God for saving me while my neighbour is damned
without hope of salvation.
*****
“It must be from God”
The Holy Bible must have been
Inspired of God and not of men
I could not, if I would, believe
That good men wrote it to deceive,
and bad men could not if they would.,
and surely would not if they could,
Proceed to write a book so good.
and certainly no crazy man
could e’er conceive its wondrous plan,
And pray, what other kinds of men
Than do these three groups comprehend?
Hence it must be that God inspired
The Word which souls of prophets
fired.
Author Unknown
Waymarks Contender is
published quarterly by Ron Smith. It appears usually in www.blogspot.com
All articles are mine
unless credits are given. Correspondence to waymarks@ntlworld.com
